New epidemiological study finds no connection between cases of cancer and use of plant protection products containing glyphosate

To do so, the researchers evaluated as yet unpublished data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) in the USA, the observation period of which had been extended by eleven years. Through the extended follow-up of the AHS, they come to the conclusion that no significant connections could be established between applications of plant protection products containing glyphosate and the occurrence of cancer among the examined population group. This applies to cancers in general, as well as to special cancer types, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which has been discussed in connection with the glyphosate assessment. The results suggesting a possible association with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) are not statistically unambiguous and should be interpreted with caution.

The BfR has made an initial assessment of the new study, which was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (djx233, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx233). The study was not taken into consideration by the IARC or in the concluded European health assessment of glyphosate presented in the course of the application for its re-approval as an active substance in plant protection products.

Best Science Podcasts 2018

CircularWe're told if the economy is growing, and if we keep producing, that's a good thing. But at what cost? This hour, TED speakers explore circular systems that regenerate and re-use what we already have. Guests include economist Kate Raworth, environmental activist Tristram Stuart, landscape architect Kate Orff, entrepreneur David Katz, and graphic designer Jessi Arrington.

#504 The Art of LogicHow can mathematics help us have better arguments? This week we spend the hour with "The Art of Logic in an Illogical World" author, mathematician Eugenia Cheng, as she makes her case that the logic of mathematics can combine with emotional resonance to allow us to have better debates and arguments. Along the way we learn a lot about rigorous logic using arguments you're probably having every day, while also learning a lot about our own underlying beliefs and assumptions.